FEATURED: When an Internal Candidates is Turned Down How do You Keep Them Engaged?

How do you keep the positive emphasis on career development, when internal candidates are not selected for new positions? Sometimes these internal candidates apply repeatedly for different jobs internally, but still aren’t selected. How do you handle these situations?

Christina,
The most important thing is to be sincere above all. Then the rest should flow naturally. However an approach could be one centered around a coaching conversation which could be structured as follows:

1) Get their agreement that a problem might exist: the problem is most likely something they lack
2) Discuss mutually, some alternative solutions to tackle that which they lack
3) Mutually agree on what actions could be taken to increase their chances in the future
4) Agree on a follow up plan to measure results
5) Reinforce any achievement when you see it
6) Coach them before the next opportunity

Kind regards,
Maurizio

Help the community by fixing grammatical or spelling errors, summarizing or clarifying the solution, and adding supporting information or resources. Always respect the original author.

Popular White Paper On This Topic

Why are these people not selected? Then convey this to them honestly so
they can improve their chances and feel optimistic about that. If someone
gets good feedback (ie be real but compassionate) then they will be
motivated (or not) to change what is holding them back from getting the
position and can work on that with a goal in mind, or is it that the
organisation it self is adding to this problem ie interviewer biases,
politics etc
Cherry

Cherry Philpott is absolutely correct.
One of the success factors in being successful, whether managing staff or managing life, is: courage, the courage to tell the truth!
In this case tell them the truth about why they are not being selected and discuss what are some possible actions that could "increase their chances" for future opportunities....

This depends on how you frame what it is you need to tell them however,
the first thing is to find out why they are missing out. How often is this
happening? Does this happen to most internal applications, is there a
pattern here? Is it for similar reasons? If so then you need to take a hard
look at the organisation itself; is it lack of training, or little to no
incentive for these people to improve whilst in their current positions?
Because your original posting suggests that is it a common thing, how many?
Not all these people can be no good; I have a gut instinct there is more to
this.

Christina,
The most important thing is to be sincere above all. Then the rest should flow naturally. However an approach could be one centered around a coaching conversation which could be structured as follows:

1) Get their agreement that a problem might exist: the problem is most likely something they lack
2) Discuss mutually, some alternative solutions to tackle that which they lack
3) Mutually agree on what actions could be taken to increase their chances in the future
4) Agree on a follow up plan to measure results
5) Reinforce any achievement when you see it
6) Coach them before the next opportunity

Are you asking as the hiring manager or as the HR professional? I think I may have slightly different answers depending upon the role you're fulfilling.

First point of reference would be the job vacancy parameters and a discussion of gaps in the qualifications of the candidate. The hiring manager could give much more specific information to the candidate than the HR person may be able to provide.

You'd also want to provide some ideas about informational interviewing, job shadowing, temporary assignments, etc. that would help the candidate build experience.

The other aspect would be framing the overall needs of the organization and the enterprise on a longer term basis and providing the candidate with some internal examples of others who have been successful and what they did to get there (e.g., "Did you know our CEO began her career in the field as a laborer? She used our tuition refund program to pursue her Master's degree in Engineering and she took lateral moves in marketing, finance and operations in order to gain broader organizational experience before being promoted to Director, VP, then EVP of Operations. She was with the company for twenty-two years before being appointed as CEO. We offer plenty of opportunity for career development, but it doesn't always take a straight line path. Let's talk about some of the pathways you might want to consider?)

If the candidate still isn't convinced, I would ask him/her why s/he thought she had not been successful. That would give you an opportunity to discuss each idea the employee brings up. (e.g., "I have more experience" - response, "the successful candidate has held this position in another company for seven years. Your resume indicates that you were hired into the Associate position in that department six months ago. How do you think your experience compares?")
.

Thanks Cherry, I don't think it's a common event, but in every organization I've worked with there are always a handful of employees who apply for internal positions repeatedly, but after many attempts just aren't the right person for the new job. How can you keep them engaged, motivated and encouraged? They are usually good steady performers in their current job.

Hi Christina, well that's another question. Again I think you need to be
honest so they have the opportunity to improve. I managed to delete the
other person's responses and can't remember his name (my humble apologies,
must have been a senior moment) but he was spot on with his last answers.
Try these.

If it's true that the internal candidates are good, solid performers, but just aren't the right fit (whether by transferable skills, experience or both) for a particular job, I feel that the recruiter should be upfront with the candidate about it. It always really makes my skin boil that recruiters can't be bothered to send a reply. Even if it's a form email that basically says they've chosen to proceed in the process with a different candidate. Now, having said that, I believe this type of generic approach is better for external candidates because they have come to accept it. (This doesn't mean it's humanistic.) But for internal candidates--rubbish. I feel that if they are truly valued employees of this company, someone could take the time to tell them why they did not get an interview and what they can do to improve their skills/experience/education/whatever, and thus improve their chances of being selected to interview for the job. It's horrible when you don't know why it's not happening and eventually, for a simple thing such as lack of communication, a good employee is looking to take their talent elsewhere. Therefore, I fault the process and the HR leaders making the decision not to have an open communication process. I've heard it said by one associate where I've worked: "Don't bother paying for my education if you're not going to give me a chance at an interview once I've graduated." Waste of investment.

What a wonderful way to start the conversation! The simple suggestion of asking the candidate why they think they weren't successful sets the ownership of development with the candidate. Starting the discussion this way should be a big help in setting the right tone for the discussion. Then the developmental gaps are truly opportunities for improvement that the candidate can and should act on (with specific support from the organization).

Thanks for the very useful outline. Does anyone have suggestions on how/when to "measure results"? should that be something done in conjunction with the hiring manager (who didn't select the candidate) or something done by an HR professional?

hello again
how to keep disappointed people engaged ?
I can only suggest scenarios for future occasions.
Ideally the employees should all be very up-to-date regarding how they stand vis a vis their development and position in the department ( ongoing performance management )
Ideally an internal vacancy will have been made public in the organsation, complete with job description
Ideally when a disappointed employee comes to ask why he/she did not fill the vacancy , it will then be very easy to compare performance and current proficiency with the job description and outline the gaps.
In this way , personalities are not involved because the information is visible and very cut and dried.
training can then be offered in order to fill in these gaps and the employee's worth is validated thus easing the sting of " not having made it " this time around.
Perhaps I am closing the stable door after the horse has bolted but these situations will continue to raise their sticky heads so there is no better time than NOW to prepare!!

These are all great suggestions. Honesty is always the best approach. It needs to be a two way street. Conversations about career advancement and development should not be happening only at the time of disappointment... when an internal candiadte does not get the job. I would like to add another piece to the engagement puzzle. Why does the employee want the promotion? I have witnessed in many organizations employees who pursue promotion and win competitions. Those employees like the competition and win promotions because of past efforts and perhaps because of merits but do they really want the responsibilities of the promotion? Not always. Those who pursue promotions for the glory of competition may never be satisfied with any explanation if winning is what matters to them.
These conversations should be happening during performance discussions. Each employee and manager takes a proactive approach to career development reater than a reactive damage control.

First of all I am a little puzzled as to how the person was actually hired by a manager who had not selected them : or were they selected through an HR division and recommended on to the department? While the hiring manager may not have selected the candidate, he/she should be the one measuring performance on an almost daily basis (unless I am totally in a fog and the hiring manager is not the candidate's line-manager). At any rate, if the hiring manager is not the line manager, he/she should request regular reports on the candidate's performance and development from the line manager.
The performance objectives should be very clearly defined in a SMART contract and unless this happens it is nigh impossible to measure performance against this criteria.
S specific job description and objectives
M how will this be measured (visible and tangible proof of performance)
A have the objectives been discussed and agreed upon by management and employee ?
R is the contract relevant to this person's capabilities ?
T what are the timelines set in place for each objective ?
It is then a very easy matter to compare performance levels with the clearly outlined objectives.
I tried to copy and paste an example of a SMART contract however it did not work ; can send one in an email if you so wish!

Given some thought to this and believe that the issue could lie in the initial job brief that is posted. Any internal job advert should be very clear on the selection criteria for the role, this will help the applicants measure themselves against the criteria; perhaps instead of interviewing them as part of the process if they do not meet the criteria have a different type of discussion with them clearly demonstrating where the areas for development are and provide suggestions on how to get there and what assistance can be provided by the HR or Management team.

A Career Path Plan discussion should take place ensuring the employee has clear direction and a plan on how to get there, this could save some disappointment for them if they are applying for roles that they are clearly not suited for.

I like the comments posted. In addition, what I found to be effective is to have a transparent process of selection for the said positions. A lot of the times, it is a perceived sense of inequity which is the real problem. By showcasing that the selection process was fair and based on specific criteria required for the position, some of the negativity and/or perceived inequity can be allayed.

Transparency; we sometimes underestimate the ability of adults to accept the truth. The truth about anything is usually accepted if it is felt that there is a genuine process in place; a process that is:
1) Fair
2) Transparent
3) Unbiased

I recommend to pay specific attention to the reasons why an internal
candidate has applied to several job openings without success. It is very
positive to keep an honest discussion with the internal candidate and
explain the mismatch to positions he/she applied to.

I do not think normally recruiters take much time to explain to internal
candidates the reasons why he/she was not selected for the job, so it leads
to misunderstandings and a negative perception of the developmental
possibilities inside the company. I developed an internal form to be filled
by recruiters, explaining clearly the reasons why an internal candidate was
not selected and when/how it was communicated to him/her. To avoid negative
feelings, I wanted to track these issues because normally they are raised
later on when the words "development" or "career" are used in the
company... So it helps that HR/Manager can have access to this information
if this is discussed on the annual reviews.